Author Topic: Campaign to get original contents of PS Woodcock statement, set to solve case...  (Read 21118 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Who amongst us, faced with all the weight of this information can honestly say that June Bambers body was the female body that was known to have committed suicide by 7.45am? If so, by which weapon could she have committed suicide by use of, or with?  If you look at the crime scene photographs, you cannot see any weapon close enough to her own body to suggest that she could possibly have even remotely to have taken her own life. What are we supposed to believe if she had committed suicide, accept that the rifle had jumped from her grasp and control and fell back into position against the left side of the main bedroom window? Worse still, that after June Bamber had taken her own life by use of the anshuzt rifle, it had flown across the room from her position close to the bedroom door, sailed over the bed, and landed smack bang along the centre of Sheila's body that was laid out parrallel with the edge of the bed on the floor, and that just per chance Sheila in a state of complete collapse suddenly raised her right arm / hand so that the rifle by which June had killed herself, landed snugly into position, so that no sooner did the rifle land atop Sheila's body, than her right hand collapsed right into the perfect position, to permit police to later conclude that it had been Sheila who had in fact committed suicide, not June Bamber...
« Last Edit: October 23, 2015, 02:20:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
June Bambers body cannot have been the second body in the true sequence of events to have been found by the police. She did not commit suicide, and with her body being preseƱt upstairs, there would have been reported that a total of four BODIES had been discovered upstairs, not three. .
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
These problems exist because (a) the firearms operation inside the premises went pearshaped after 8.10am, (b) there was a displacement of Sheila's body from the main kitchen downstairs, to the main bedroom upstairs, (c) the general  crime scenes in the main kitchen and the main bedroom were staged by police before crime scene photographs were taken and referred to as how scenes were found before anything was touched or moved by anyone, (D) firearm officers made false witness statements with a view to covering up these activities..
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33773
If you are referring to Sheila's body being on the bed, that's not what he told me face to face, or spoke to me about over the phone, or wrote to me about in letters. You show me any letter he has written to you or anybody else, where he says the claim Sheila was on the bed, is rubbish...

If you are referring to his daughter, then I don't know what he told you, but in any event it wasn't Jeremy who told me, it was the child's mother. I found out from her in 2003, that Jeremy had been contemplating getting his daughter to make a claim as a benefactor to a share in the Mabel Speakman estate, because she was 18 years of age at that stage, but there was some confusion about how old a benefactor had to be, for example, 21 as opposed to 18...

I was told this by a close friend of mine, who is the child's mother. I promised her that I would never name either her, or their daughter, which I won't, but it does not prevent me from mentioning Jeremy has a  daughter, because its true, he does. He will go mad at me for breaking the news, because the mother of his child confided in me in the first instance. I am not bothered if he has told you that any suggestion about him having a daughter is rubbish, because if he ever writes again to me saying what your saying, I will be at liberty to break the promise I made to the child's mother, and as far as I will be concerned, it will be on Jeremy's head that I am forced to reveal what I know...

Well, well, well!!!! How UTTERLY amazing!!! Of all the women, in all the country, this ALLEGED child's mother just SO happens to turn out to be a close friend of yours!!!!! Given some of what you said of the alleged child -given that you said ANYTHING-  NOT a friend you value.

One has to wonder if this little child has been trawled across the country from prison to prison to see her "Daddy"? Has she been taught to write little letters to "Daddy"? More important, is "Daddy's" name on her birth certificate? Have the requisite DNA tests been done to establish paternity? Might it be, that because said child is just a figment of imagination, the reason Jeremy only "contemplated" "getting his daughter(!!!!!) to make a claim as a benefactor to a share of the Mabel Speakman estate.........."!!!!!!!! OR perhaps he entered into  a scam, whereby some CLAIMING to be his daughter, claimed on his behalf? Hmm. I suppose it can be said that without a name on a birth certificate, ANYTHING is possible. The trouble is, without a name on a birth certificate, NOTHING is possible.

By now, of course, it can't have failed to escape your knowledge, that Jeremy LIES -just for the record, Caroline DOESN'T. If she tells you that Jeremy told her something, you may rest assured, he did- SO, the question is now, having told you and Caroline entirely different stories, to WHOM did he lie?

Of course, quite naturally, THIS -Jeremy having told you one thing and Caroline something entirely different- this is likely to throw doubts on just how honest Jeremy has been and is going to cause people to wonder what other things may he have told different stories about. It MAY turn out to be a secret that you'd have been wiser NOT to break. It's certainly a reminder to me NOT to share any with you.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Well, well, well!!!! How UTTERLY amazing!!! Of all the women, in all the country, this ALLEGED child's mother just SO happens to turn out to be a close friend of yours!!!!!

First of all, you nor anybody else chooses who my friends are, or when they became my close friends. In the instant case I first met the mother of Jeremys child in 2002, and from then on we became friends, but none of this / that has got anything to do with you or anybody else, or what Jeremy told this person, or that person. He can tell anybody what the hell he likes, and I am not bothered if he tells somebody else something different, I am only interested in what other people tell me, and that includes what Jeremy has told me in all the years I have known / knew him. Yes, the mother of Jeremys daughter did become a close friend of mine, such friendships have to start somewhere. There's nothing utterly amazing about anything, other than why you think I can't have a close friend who I met through my contact with Jeremy in 2002. You think what you like, but who are you to tell me which friends I can have without it being some sort of a big issue? You should think before you open your gob...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Well, well, well!!!! How UTTERLY amazing!!! Of all the women, in all the country, this ALLEGED child's mother just SO happens to turn out to be a close friend of yours!!!!! Given some of what you said of the alleged child -given that you said ANYTHING-  NOT a friend you value.

One has to wonder if this little child has been trawled across the country from prison to prison to see her "Daddy"? Has she been taught to write little letters to "Daddy"? More important, is "Daddy's" name on her birth certificate? Have the requisite DNA tests been done to establish paternity? Might it be, that because said child is just a figment of imagination, the reason Jeremy only "contemplated" "getting his daughter(!!!!!) to make a claim as a benefactor to a share of the Mabel Speakman estate.........."!!!!!!!! OR perhaps he entered into  a scam, whereby some CLAIMING to be his daughter, claimed on his behalf? Hmm. I suppose it can be said that without a name on a birth certificate, ANYTHING is possible. The trouble is, without a name on a birth certificate, NOTHING is possible.

By now, of course, it can't have failed to escape your knowledge, that Jeremy LIES -just for the record, Caroline DOESN'T. If she tells you that Jeremy told her something, you may rest assured, he did- SO, the question is now, having told you and Caroline entirely different stories, to WHOM did he lie?

Of course, quite naturally, THIS -Jeremy having told you one thing and Caroline something entirely different- this is likely to throw doubts on just how honest Jeremy has been and is going to cause people to wonder what other things may he have told different stories about. It MAY turn out to be a secret that you'd have been wiser NOT to break. It's certainly a reminder to me NOT to share any with you.

Just to be clear, I didn't ask him about the daughter, this is a new claim and I don't communicate with Jeremy now, but it begs the question why anyone would believe such a claim without proof! I asked him about the picture on the bed with one shot to the throat.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079

One has to wonder if this little child has been trawled across the country from prison to prison to see her "Daddy"? Has she been taught to write little letters to "Daddy"? More important, is "Daddy's" name on her birth certificate?

You would have to ask Jeremy about such visits, and the mother of his daughter. I met Jeremys daughter at her mothers house on a couple of occasions, and before you start there is nothing remotely amazing about that...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Have the requisite DNA tests been done to establish paternity?

Now, how would I know that sort of detail?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Might it be, that because said child is just a figment of imagination, the reason Jeremy only "contemplated" "getting his daughter(!!!!!) to make a claim as a benefactor to a share of the Mabel Speakman estate.........."!!!!!!!! OR perhaps he entered into  a scam, whereby some CLAIMING to be his daughter, claimed on his behalf? Hmm. I suppose it can be said that without a name on a birth certificate, ANYTHING is possible. The trouble is, without a name on a birth certificate, NOTHING is possible.

What has any of this got to do with me?

I am only the messenger...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079

By now, of course, it can't have failed to escape your knowledge, that Jeremy LIES -just for the record, Caroline DOESN'T.

Why are you making out an issue that she might lie, then?
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Now, how would I know that sort of detail?

Then if there is no proof of paternity, it's just a claim. However, I can't see how such a person could make any such financial claim of any sort even if they did exist.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079

 If she tells you that Jeremy told her something, you may rest assured, he did

Rests assured that he didn't tell me anything different, other than he told me nothing about his daughter, I was told by the mother of his daughter, who was in regular contact with Jeremy in 2002, onward - so, I am not challenging anything Jeremy may have said to Caroline, I have never even asked her what Jeremy supposedly said to her, she volunteered the information herself on the forum. I am not responsible for what Jeremy may have told her, nor for what she has posted on the forum...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
  SO, the question is now, having told you and Caroline entirely different stories, to WHOM did he lie?


Hang on a minute...

He didn't tell me anything, so don't start putting words into my mouth...

I can speak for myself, and I can think, and I can reconstruct...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079

Of course, quite naturally, THIS -Jeremy having told you one thing He never told me about his daughter in the first instance and Caroline something entirely different He didn't - this is likely to throw doubts on just how honest Jeremy has been How do you work that out when Jeremy hasn't done half of which you maintain he has and is going to cause people to wonder what other things may he have told different stories about. I don't see how that's going to apply in this instance because your accusing Jeremy of doing something he didn't do in the circumstances of this particular matter It MAY turn out to be a secret that you'd have been wiser NOT to break. No contest It's certainly a reminder to me NOT to share any with you. Good, I look forward not to hear from you, goodbye
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076




Just the .22 he grabbed off Sheila ?

Mike said "HIS weapon".
Few people have the imagination for reality